Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

First Rebuttal

 

Moses Flores

 

           

            There are several things that need to be responded to before I continue to give more basis to the formulation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so I will get to those quickly, and if space permits, I will addend to my opening statement.

 

            First, you said, “If after reading scripture and coming to the true interpretation of a certain text or portion of the text, a person might write out the interpretation for others.  Now if this was actually the real and true understanding of the Bible, would [it] be wrong to consider handing down that teaching to future generations?”

            The first thing that has to be noted here is that this is NOT what the Roman Catholic Church teaches concerning what “sacred tradition” is.  It would be nice if they did for it would further the case for the sufficiency of Scripture vs. the supplementality of sacred tradition in order to understand Scripture.  Let me explain.

            As shown with references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the Magisterium teaches that Sacred Tradition is a supplementary body of revelation that exists apart from Sacred Scripture.  Together with Scripture, these form the “Word of God” in its totality.  According to Rome, the true interpretation of Scripture cannot be ascertained apart from the Tradition.  Hence, your proposition is actually in contradiction with that of the official and dogmatic teachings of Rome.  Were it actually the case that the “sacred tradition” were really the “true interpretation” of Scripture passed on, I would certainly not have a problem with that as that has happened for sure, no doubt.  With such a view, it is still the case that Scripture is the ultimate authority for it is Scripture that produced the “true interpretation” and Scripture retains its sufficiency to exist and be understood.

            I would even argue that this is what has been done in things like Creeds and Confession, like the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, etc…These historic creeds have carried along the “true interpretation” of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.  However, it is not the case that we could not know such doctrines were it not for these “true interpretations”.  I think any fair reading of the Nicene Fathers would reveal that they appealed to Scripture as the basis for their belief in these doctrines.  Hence, I don’t have a problem with what you say as “tradition” and neither do some of the early fathers. 

            In fact, many of the fathers use the term “tradition” to describe their understandings of Scripture.  For instance, within the writings of Tertullian, he makes reference to a “tradition”:

 

“They obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance;  and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations.  They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches…From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which we become Christians.[1]”

 

This faith that was “handed down” (traditioned) were the essential doctrines “by which men become Christians.[2]”  They were the common teachings of all the apostles which they took through the world in their proclamation of Christ.  Such faith is not able to be added to as it was already defined.  Tertullian said, “This rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, immovable and irreformable.[3]”  Thus, this “tradition” that Tertullian spoke of is not something that has grown or developed, neither is it something that can be added to or deleted from.  It should also be noted that this “tradition” is not something different from the content that is found in the Scriptures.  Indeed all essential teachings of the apostles are confirmed in Scripture (cf. II Tim. 3:14-16, II Peter 3:16).  William Webster points out that “the content of Scripture and the teaching of the rule of faith are identical.[4]”  He further states that the rule of faith consisted of “the primary doctrines that make up the creed pertaining to the three persons of the Trinity and the judgment to come[5].  All these teachings are founded in Scripture, and, thus, Scripture is able to serve as the foundation of this “tradition” that Tertullian and the other fathers refer to.

I certainly could quote a few more fathers with similar references, but I want to save that for a later exchange dealing with the fathers and their view of Scripture and tradition.

Second, you said, “This message would need to be handed down because of the simple fact that many others might mis-interpret the scriptures and thereby spread a less than true understanding of them.”  Now, by “handed down” I assume that you mean passed on orally.  Frankly this seems a bit odd that one would “orally transmit” the “true interpretation” for fear of misinterpreting the Scriptures from which they came.  It strikes me as odd that the Scriptures were written down for their preservation but not this “true interpretation”.  The reasoning is odd, because wouldn’t one want to actually protect the source of the interpretations rather than the interpretations?  That is, if it is Scripture which yielded the interpretations, wouldn’t it make more sense to protect them from being corrupted and changed (as has been the case) than the “true interpretations” which could always be reproduced from the source? 

This statement of yours would also seem to have to presuppose some things about Scripture.  One would have to presuppose that the Scriptures are not clear enough that they need a “true interpretation”.  That is, we would have to suppose that the Scriptures are obscure and veiled.  But then that would mean that they are not “revelation” at all.  That is, revelation is understood as an unveiling, a pulling back of the curtain to show what was previously hidden.  If the Scriptures are not clear, then in what sense are they revelation if they are at all in such a view?  I’m not sure that you are willing to go down that road, but it would seem to be the case that this is what must be supposed if the Scriptures need a “true interpretation” beyond themselves in order to be truly understood.

Then you said, “Doesn’t scripture itself create the need of a true interpretation?”  Again, this is only true if one presupposes that Scripture, in and of itself, is not really revelation but needs a “decoder” as it were, to come to the true knowledge of what it really says.  But then doesn’t this put the Roman Catholic Church in the same hermeneutical position as the early Gnostic heresy?  They too had claimed a “secret knowledge” to truly understand the Scriptures.  The Gnostics claimed that Scripture alone was insufficient for salvation.  The Gnostics even claimed that only a minority of people had been handed down this knowledge.  If Scripture claims to be the word of God, and God’s word is still obscure, what does that say about God?  How is Rome any different from the Watchtower Society which claims to be a true interpreter of Scripture as well, or Mormonism?

You alluded to the “thousands upon thousands of different interpretations of the Bible”.  While I certainly disagree with the exaggeration, I will grant it for now.  First of all, the misuse of Scripture doesn’t necessarily preclude its sufficiency or supremacy.  It is true that the Bible has been misused and abused, but Peter spoke of this in His second letter in 3:16.  He said that “untaught and unstable” (NKJV) or “ignorant and unstable” men “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.”   I certainly agree that the Bible has been misused.  But what gives the Roman Catholic Church, the right to declare herself to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture?  What makes her claims stronger than those the Eastern Orthodox Church (which has existed longer)?  What gives Rome her better validity over the Watchtower society or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  If the appeal is simply, “Because we say so!” one finds themselves begging the question right away!

Allow me to show that Rome does not have one “true interpretation” in her history.  I have done some research on the patristic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 and have found that there are at least three categories of interpretations of who the “Rock” is in that passage.  With some slight variations on each interpretation from the fathers, the Rock is either 1) Christ 2) our Faith/Confession in Christ and/or Peter’s Confession 3) Peter as representative of all true believers who become “rocks”.  Now, let’s put your theory to the test.  If what I have said is true, and I believe it to be accurately represented out of 33 early Fathers, here we have roughly three interpretations not counting the slight variations.  The majority, only by 1, say that Peter’s Confession, or his faith in Christ, was the Rock of which Jesus spoke.  Now, if what you have said is true, how did they decide?  Also, isn’t it the case, that if these all differed on their interpretation, and yet the Council of Trent and Vatican I defined the “tradition” as the “unanimous consent of the fathers”, how is it that the Roman Catholic Church went on to Dogmatically define “the Rock” as the person and office of Peter himself, when that interpretation was pretty much limited to Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Firmillian?  The great Augustine himself eventually taught that Christ was the Rock. Gregory the Great, a pope himself, even believed that Peter’s confession was the Rock upon which the Church is built!  I’m not convinced that your theory will actually stand its own test.

Next, you state a hypothetical situation in which you suppose that books are taken out of the Scriptures and ask if Scripture would still contain enough?  I don’t wish to respond to this hypothetical situation because that’s what it is; hypothetical.  Secondly, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not based on “some Scripture” but predicated on “all Scripture”, which are all those writings that are “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).  As stated, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture alone – all Scripture – contains the sufficient knowledge that one needs in order to be saved and to live a godly life.  The hypothetical, quite frankly, presupposes a different definition of Sola Scriptura which I cannot answer.

Concerning the issue of the canon, I am going to address that in another exchange as space is fleeting.

Concerning your remarks to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I can only say it only seems obvious that you did not really examine or engage with the exegesis that I provided.  You say that all Timothy knew was the Old Testament.  I agree!  I stated that plainly.  You also said that Paul probably had reference to the Old Testament in 3:15.  Again, I agree and plainly stated that!  And I also agreed with Paul who said that those Scriptures, the Old Testament, were “able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus,” to which I concluded Paul’s statement of the sufficiency of the Old Testament to lead to salvation.  If the Old Testament was sufficient to do that, how much more with the New Testament!  Hence, the shift in verse 16 from the Old Testament Scriptures, which were clearly known, to the universal categorical, “all scripture”.  All Scripture is God-breathed, speaking of the nature of Scripture and how we identify it.  This will be dealt with a bit more in the issue of the canon.

Suffice it to say, there was no serious interaction at all with the exegesis to which I was seriously disappointed.  As it is, then, my exegesis stands unrefuted grammatically and syntactically.  Questions don’t refute arguments.  Flaws in the logic do as well as truth value of the statements.  I have certainly provided much in context on 2 Timothy 3:16 as well as grammar and syntax, and even basic word meanings.  Thus, I have dealt with the text of the Scripture to allow it to speak for itself. 

Concerning the latter part of your response, on “who the Word of God is” I don’t think we have any qualms about that.  We certainly agree that Jesus Christ is the eternal logos of God and we agree of the role of the Spirit.  I don’t think this is the issue at all.

I hope we can engage in our discussion topic for that is what we disagree on.

            I did not have time to engage with the Fathers as I wanted too, and I still have to engage with the issue of the formation of the canon of Scripture which I am certainly looking forward to doing.  I pray that this discussion continues to be fruitful to us both and that we can come to at the very least, a clearer understanding of our faiths.  In Christ’s name.  Amen.